In 2000, the same year that a majority of citizens in his home state and elsewhere rejected Al Gore's bid to become president, the then-vice president had his apparatchiks concoct a first U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.

This study suggested that by the year 2100 Earth's average temperature would soar, with potentially disastrous consequences.

What made Gore's study especially odd was that it relied on data from the two most extreme climate research centers on the planet, one being the now-notorious Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia, whose computer models projected a dangerous average global warming of 5.4 degrees F (Fahrenheit).

But Gore's study deliberately omitted America's own National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) projection, which predicted a potential temperature rise of only 1.8 degrees F.

Such a less-than-doomsday warming, as Marc Morano and I wrote in a July 2006 Newsmax magazine cover story, “might scarcely be noticed — except by Siberians and Canadians enjoying a longer growing season.”

We should have learned several things from Mr. Gore's 2000 deception:

Gore and his fellow doomsayers are always ready and willing to cook the books to fatten their pocketbooks and political power by conjuring fears of global warming.

Like those warming scientists in recently disclosed secret e-mails who boasted of altering data or throwing out measurements of global cooling, Gore was eager to discard any information that contradicted the scare propaganda he was promoting.

Scientists who presumably had similar temperature measurements processed them into wildly different scenarios — with NCAR projecting an excessive 1.8 degrees F but the Canadian government predicting a global temperature rise of 14.4 degrees F, nearly 10 times bigger.

Such huge disparity in predictions suggests that vast uncertainties exist in what scientists know about the forces shaping Earth's climate.

These scientists produce computer model climate projections that can be changed drastically by even tiny adjustments in their assumptions — whether well-intended or manipulated with sinister motives. These models also fail to predict yesterday's climate when run “backwards.”

Dec. 7 this week merges with the anniversary of 1941's Pearl Harbor attack to make this even more of a day that will live in infamy.

In Copenhagen, Denmark, politicized scientists are joining the politicians who fund them to commence 12 days of deceptive global warming propaganda designed to bash capitalism and to promote more regulation, higher taxes, global governance, and global redistribution of wealth.

The very researchers caught secretly e-mailing one another about how they rigged global temperature records are among the most prominent scientists framing what has come out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on which all the Copenhagen doomsaying is based.

The Copenhagen gathering ought to be canceled, at least until a whole new set of uncontaminated, honest data can be compiled and evaluated — which could take 10 years.

The warming scientist e-mails reveal that they have been throwing out temperature data (acquired at great taxpayer expense) whenever measurements did not advance their agenda. None of their surviving data — cherry-picked or reprocessed to bolster their point of view — is now trustworthy. All should be discarded, and research should begin again with honest researchers.

As this science scandal grows, President Obama days ago announced that he will now attend only the final day or so of the Copenhagen gathering.

Al Gore canceled his appearance at a festivity there where 3,000 Danes had anted up $1,200 apiece for the privilege of shaking his hand and being photographed with him.

In Hollywood and elsewhere, a drumbeat has begun for Mr. Gore and the IPCC to be stripped of the Nobel Prize they shared for their work on the issue of global warming — work that evidence now inconveniently suggests is hopelessly contaminated with potentially fraudulent science.

In a just world Mr. Gore would be stripped of the hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth he has made through this global warming fraud and redistributed to his victims, forced to pay higher fuel and energy bills and more for almost everything else they buy because of new climate policies and regulations.

Those who have carefully followed the global warming issue knew long ago that we were being lied to when a prominent climate scientist urged colleagues to “offer up scary scenarios” and make public statements without mentioning the doubts and uncertainties they had about global warming.

We knew it when a left-liberal democratic U.S. senator close to Hillary Clinton said: “We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy,” i.e., moving toward socialism.

And we will continue to be lied to this week by other socialist politicians in Copenhagen, by scientists they bankroll, and by the liberal media that has told you little or nothing about the e-mails that suggest global warming is a manipulated pseudoscientific fraud that should lead to the firing of every scientist even tangentially involved in it.

These scientists have preached for years that all skeptical research funded by energy companies should be discredited because of the profit-seeking agenda of its sponsors.

By that same logic, with global warming being used to promote bigger government and higher taxes, we should automatically discredit all scientists directly and indirectly funded by government money and institutions, including state universities and NASA, which has stonewalled freedom-of-information requests for its raw climate data.

Fully 59 percent of respondents in a recent poll said they believed that scientific data that shows global warming is being rigged.

By distorting science to promote a political and ideological agenda, Mr. Gore has undermined the authority and credibility that scientists used to possess.

The global scientific community urgently needs to purge and distance itself from politicized scientists, starting in Copenhagen.

Lowell Ponte is co-host of the radio show “Night-Watch,” heard live nationwide Monday through Friday, 10 p.m. to Midnight Eastern time, on gcnlive.com.

In 2000, the same year that a majority of citizens in his home state and elsewhere rejected Al Gore's bid to become president, the then-vice president had his apparatchiks concoct a first U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and...